IMPORTANT POINT
If the defendant raises a substantial defence or triable issues, they are entitled to unconditional leave to defend, and a full-fledged trial may be necessary to adjudicate disputed facts.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 59291/2023 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM APPLs. 59292/2023 (Delay in filing) & CM APPLs. 59292/2023 (Delay in re-filing)

1. The instant applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the instant revision petition have been filed on behalf of applicant/petitioner.

2. For the reason stated in the applications, the delay of 11 days each in filing and refiling the instant revision petition is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of.

C.R.P. 335/2023

4. The instant civil revision petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, North East, Karkardooma Court Complex in CS No. 141 of 2020 titled "Mohd. Anwar vs Parvez Ahmad".

B. Pass such other or further orders in favour of petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

a. The respondent, i.e., the defendant before the learned Trial Court is nephew of the petitioner, i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court.

b. It has been stated that the respondent had approached the petitioner on 1st January 2018, with a request for a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the ground that the he is in need of money to help his father in some criminal matter and to start his business. Further, the respondent had assured the entire sum of loan will be repaid within six months from the date of loan.

c. Upon the request made on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner allegedly advanced a loan of sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 5th January 2018, and a promissory note dated 5th January 2018, was also executed between the parties. As per the promissory note, the respondent promised to repay the said loan amount within six months.

d. Upon completion of the six months' time period, the respondent failed to repay the loan amount. The petitioner made several requests to the respondent and accordingly sent a legal notice dated 3rd June 2020, demanding the money advanced to the respondent. The petitioner also sent a reminder legal notice dated 12th June 2020, but to no avail.

e. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing CS no. 141/2020, under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), for recovery of the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the CPC, seeking leave to defend the above said suit.

f. The aforementioned application of the respondent was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17th May 2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the matter.

7. It is submitted that the learned Court below erred in holding that there are disputed facts which needs to be adjudicated by way of a full-fledged trial.

8. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the settled position of law that the leave to defend can only be granted if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses a bona fide dispute.

9. It is submitted that there are glaring disparity in the defence taken by the respondent before the Trial Court and there is an active concealment of facts in the affidavit, furthermore, the respondent's reliance is placed upon fabricated and manufactured documents.

10. It is submitted that the respondent, through his leave to defend application, has